Serious games for energy social science research Wood, G. , van der Horst, D., Day, R., Bakaoukas, A.G. , Petridis, P., Liu, S. , Jalil, L. , Gaterell, M., Smithson, E. , Barnham, J., Harvey, D., Yang, B. and Pisithpunth, C. Published version deposited in CURVE September 2015 Original citation & hyperlink: Wood, G. , van der Horst, D., Day, R., Bakaoukas, A.G. , Petridis, P., Liu, S. , Jalil, L. , Gaterell, M., Smithson, E. , Barnham, J., Harvey, D., Yang, B. and Pisithpunth, C. (2014) Serious games for energy social science research. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, volume 26 (10): 1212-1227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2014.978277 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

CURVE is the Institutional Repository for Coventry University http://curve.coventry.ac.uk/open

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ctas20

Download by: [Lanchester Library] Date: 25 September 2015, At: 08:48

Technology Analysis & Strategic Management

ISSN: 0953-7325 (Print) 1465-3990 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctas20

Serious games for energy social science research

Georgina Wood, Dan van der Horst, Rosie Day, Anastasios G. Bakaoukas,Panagiotis Petridis, Shuli Liu, Latifimran Jalil, Mark Gaterell, Elise Smithson,John Barnham, Debbie Harvey, Benqiang Yang & Charn Pisithpunth

To cite this article: Georgina Wood, Dan van der Horst, Rosie Day, Anastasios G. Bakaoukas,Panagiotis Petridis, Shuli Liu, Latifimran Jalil, Mark Gaterell, Elise Smithson, John Barnham,Debbie Harvey, Benqiang Yang & Charn Pisithpunth (2014) Serious games for energy socialscience research, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26:10, 1212-1227, DOI:10.1080/09537325.2014.978277

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2014.978277

© 2014 The Author(s). Published by Taylor &Francis.

Published online: 14 Nov 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 298

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 2014Vol. 26, No. 10, 1212–1227, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2014.978277

Serious games for energy social scienceresearch

Georgina Wooda∗, Dan van der Horstb, Rosie Dayc, Anastasios G. Bakaoukasa,Panagiotis Petridisd, Shuli Liua, Latifimran Jalila, Mark Gaterellf, Elise Smithsona,John Barnhamg, Debbie Harveyg, Benqiang Yangh and Charn Pisithpunthe

aFaculty of Engineering and Computing, Coventry University, Sir John Laing Building, Coventry CV1 5FB, UK;bSchool of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK; cSchool of Geography, Earth and EnvironmentalSciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK; d Aston Business School, Aston University, Birmingham, UK;eSerious Games Institute, Coventry University, Coventry, UK; f Faculty of Technology, University of Portsmouth,Portsmouth, UK; gOrbit Group, Stratford-upon-Avon, UK; hThe State Key Laboratory of Power TransmissionEquipment & System Security and New Technology, Chongqing University, Chongqing, People’s Republic of China

This paper proposes a set of criteria for evaluation of serious games (SGs) which are intendedas effective methods of engaging energy users and lowering consumption. We discuss oppor-tunities for using SGs in energy research which go beyond existing feedback mechanisms,including use of immersive virtual worlds for learning and testing behaviours, and sparkingconversations within households. From a review of existing SG evaluation criteria, we definea tailored set of criteria for energy SG development and evaluation. The criteria emphasisethe need for the game to increase energy literacy through applicability to real-life energyuse/management; clear, actionable goals and feedback; ways of comparing usage socially andpersonal relevance. Three existing energy games are evaluated according to this framework.The paper concludes by outlining directions for future development of SGs as an effective toolin social science research, including games which inspire reflection on trade-offs and usage atdifferent scales.

Keywords: domestic energy demand; serious games; evaluation framework; feedbackmechanisms

1. Introduction

With the roll-out of smart meters and in-home displays (IHDs) completed in a few countries andunderway in many more (reaching approximately 70% of European households by 2020; JRC2014), the question of how householders engage with this step change in feedback about theirenergy usage is becoming more pertinent. Strengers’ (2013, 51) ironic depiction of ‘ResourceMan’, ‘a data-driven, information-hungry, technology-savvy home energy manager’ challengesthe expectation that every user will be keen to read the numeric data on an IHD and take thetime to understand and deconstruct their energy consumption. Conflicting reports exist about the

∗Corresponding author. Email: ab6869@coventry.ac.uk

© 2014 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis.This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properlycited.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lan

ches

ter

Lib

rary

] at

08:

48 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2015

Serious games for energy social science research 1213

interests that users maintain in IHDs; Snow et al. (2013) and Hargreaves (2012) find them tobe moved out of sight over time, while Schwartz et al. (2014) and Burchell, Rettie, and Roberts(2014) report that use persists over the medium term. Therefore, the quest continues to find thebest ways to display and communicate energy use information to the bill payer AND other energyconsumers in the building (household members and office staff) so as to encourage and enablethem to better manage and ideally reduce their energy use. The aim of this paper is to assessthe potential for serious games (SGs) to increase energy literacy among users and potentiallyencourage reductions, aided by a proposed set of tailored criteria. Already, some IHDs take onaspects of gamification, whereby features of games such as points and goals are transposed tonon-gaming environments, with comparative performance indicators (e.g. neighbourhood aver-age; E.ON 2014) being a popular form of nudging. There is growing evidence that some peoplerespond better to ‘playful’ formats of information feedback (e.g. Lucero et al. 2014). This trendof gamification of data displays is a wider phenomenon, as is the growing trend of using digitalgames for learning, simulation and demonstration.

SGs are primarily designed for education (Michael and Chen 2006) and are widely used inpublic engagement in a number of fields, including environmental and cultural (e.g. Froschaueret al. 2010; Petridis et al. 2011). As members of the growing research community that studieshow citizens view and engage with the socio-technical configurations of our energy system, weseek to develop a better understanding of the (potential) role of SGs in the research agenda onenergy transitions. Drawing on existing SG evaluation frameworks, we propose a set of criteriafor evaluating energy games and the extent to which these address different aspects of energyliteracy. We apply these criteria to evaluate three existing games, selected due to their represen-tation of three categories of energy game: ‘switch-off’, ‘city mayor’ and real-time data games;and, in two cases, the presence of academic papers about their design. This helps us to identifygaps in current energy SG provision and, in the discussion, reflect on the value of such gamesfor experimental research-led interventions regarding energy consumption.

2. Background

2.1. Energy literacy and user feedback

The ‘double invisibility’ of energy (Burgess and Nye 2008) makes conscious thought about itsconsumption difficult, through both the challenge in knowing the number of units used, and theinconspicuousness of energy consumption within everyday actions. A focus on practices androutines offers one potential way to begin tackling this difficulty, but in a multi-person house-hold or workplace the bill payer has limited control over energy use (Goulden et al. 2014). Anon-bill paying majority may include people who use more energy than the payer, for example,teenagers (Bell et al. 2013), and/or who may have lower motivation to save energy, for example,employees (Carrico and Riemer 2011). It is a multi-faceted challenge for the whole householdto learn how to use display units and monitoring devices (Hargreaves 2010, 2012). The unitsof energy consumption are not intuitive for many people (KWh was called ‘kilowattevers’ bya participant in Costanza, Ramchurn, and Jennings’s 2012 study) but the usual alternative ofcommunicating energy use in financial terms may not interest those who are not paying or whocan easily afford it. Indeed, a recent study of Dutch households found that a lack of energyawareness was highest in younger, wealthier households (Brounen, Kok, and Quigley 2013).Energy literacy in fact implies a stage beyond knowledge acquisition: learners should have theability to digest and critique information they receive, and make informed decisions about their

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lan

ches

ter

Lib

rary

] at

08:

48 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2015

1214 G. Wood et al.

actions (St. Clair 2003). In order for this to happen, constructivist and transformative learningis important – the former being where a route from current knowledge to new information ispaved through applications to real life and the latter being where we are encouraged to reflectupon problematic perspectives and mindsets (Hein 1991; Mezirow 2009). Schwartz et al. (2014)suggest that IHDs should take into account different levels of existing energy literacy and pro-vide a range of entry points into using home energy management systems (HEMS). This wouldbe enhanced by attempts to engage all members of a household in ways that are interesting andrelevant to them.

Goal setting (Becker 1978) and continuous and comparative feedback (e.g. Van Houwelingenand Van Raaij 1989; Opower 2013) have been noted to be effective forms of household energyuse feedback (Abrahamse et al. 2005). However, critics note that current industry efforts to pro-vide feedback through smart-metering and IHDs still lack focus on specific behaviours that theyaim to modify (Froehlich, Findlater, and Landay 2010), and also that they make insufficient effortto ensure that feedback is presented in a way which allows people to make decisions appropriateto their own lives (Schwartz et al. 2013). A number of papers propose energy feedback designinterventions which go beyond standard IHDs, for example, using an Energy AWARE clock, or aPower Aware Cord to visualise energy use (Pierce, Odom, and Blevis 2008; Broms et al. 2010).An ongoing problem for all such endeavours is how to stop HEMS, however novel, simply drift-ing into the background once their novelty wears off (Van Dam, Bakker, and van Hal 2010). Thesuccess of gamification in ongoing engagement with energy use (Simple Energy 2014 report sav-ings of over 10% resulting from their gamified interventions) along with games’ ability to engagereluctant young learners and allow for repeated practice of performance over time (Prensky 2007)means that SGs may help to keep energy conservation in the forefront of players’ minds. Thereis an absence of long-term trials of games, though Lieberman (2001) reports regular interactionwith an SG for a full six-month trial.

2.2. Purposes and characteristics of SGs

At the most basic level, a game has three ingredients: a set of rules, the possibility to win (againstoneself or others) and ‘fun’. Given the focus of this paper we will not dwell on ‘fun’, otherthan to acknowledge that it is a key ingredient for participation. SGs add a fourth ingredient:learning. SGs can have a range of purposes, from advertising and ‘edutainment’ to training andpersonal development (SGU 2011). Increasing participants’ knowledge is one of the main aimsof SGs and central to the more pedagogically focused field of game-based learning: seen ashighly relevant to so-called digital natives (Prensky 2007). Some SGs are explicitly designedto encourage behavioural change, with several notable success stories reported from the healthsector (e.g. Lieberman 2001; Kato et al. 2008; Knight et al. 2010).

A number of academics have used SGs as a tool to engage participants with resource and plan-ning issues. Examples include participatory decision-making with farmers (Fisher et al. 2012)and inclusive urban development (Mayer et al. 2005). Such games may be played by single usersor in group settings, and are used to assist participants in learning and decision-making, and/oraim to change behaviours. SGs tend to be characterised by feedback loops and re-runs, so thatplayers can compare their results with previous runs or (in a group setting) with each other.Finally, SGs are often more effective if they simulate more closely the lived experience of theparticipants (Khaled and Vasalou 2014). This tailoring can be achieved through collaborativegame design with the participants, an activity which by itself yields valuable new knowledgefor the researcher. This knowledge may relate to the resource landscape, existing patterns of use

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lan

ches

ter

Lib

rary

] at

08:

48 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2015

Serious games for energy social science research 1215

and the decision options available to different individuals. While the format of games can varygreatly, and it is possible for some types of games to develop both material (e.g. board games)and computer versions, computer SGs offer easy tailoring, keeping scores for re-runs, storingdiagnostics, adjusting for different numbers of players and processing and displaying real-worlddata. These are potential important benefits for energy SGs that draw on smart meter data.

SGs can build upon existing social science research-related interventions (for increasingenergy literacy and encouraging reductions in energy use) in several ways. A virtual world canallow people to test out knowledge, apply it in different scenarios and see the potential conse-quences of actions and changes (Froschauer et al. 2010) (e.g. in a virtual home) in a more visualand easily understandable way than an IHD. De Freitas and Oliver (2006, 254) also discuss howimmersing oneself in an ‘internal representational world’ can support critical reflection on real-life behaviours. We would suggest that an SG may therefore act to bring relevant practices intoconsciousness and make individuals wilfully connect these with energy consumption. Dependingon the game design, it may also provide accessible visual metaphors for energy (as opposed tonumeric or graphical data displays) that help it to become less abstract to the majority of peoplewho do not see their everyday routines, like cooking or cleaning, as ‘energy behaviour’ (Burgessand Nye 2008). Additional motivation for energy use reductions can be provided through com-parisons, challenges and rewards. Orland et al. (2014) argue that the social bonds and practicalbehaviour changes encouraged by their game Energy Chickens helped to motivate players morethan other feedback mechanisms. Indeed, we believe that SGs offer the opportunity for wholehouseholds to deliberate and participate in energy management, which is something not offeredby other feedback devices.

3. Criteria for energy SGs and their evaluation

Following this discussion, what is it that energy SGs could or should be doing? We examineexisting frameworks and criteria to evaluate (any) SGs, to then develop a framework tailored forenergy SGs.

3.1. Reviewing existing SG evaluation frameworks and criteria

The assessment of SGs may focus on the evaluation of the game or of player performance (Bel-lotti et al. 2013). Table 1 summarises the key aspects of three SG evaluation frameworks thatare most relevant to and most strongly inform our criteria for an energy SG, and that thereforedo not dwell on player performance or technical aspects (see Göbel, Gutjah, and Hardy 2013) oron the higher education student course context (see Nadolski et al. 2008). The Four DimensionalFramework (De Freitas and Oliver 2006) is strongly focused on pedagogy and learner support.However, it also argues the benefit of an immersive game world representative of real life. Whilethe EGameFlow scale (Fu, Su, and Yu 2009) is focused on learner enjoyment, it contains aspectsof goals and feedback which should feature in any SG evaluation. Finally, Mayer et al. (2014)consider impacts on understanding and behaviours in the short, medium and long term, whichare important for maintenance of energy use reductions.

Discussion about the value and content of these frameworks continues. For example, Bellottiet al. (2013) stress a need for more tools to measure aspects such as higher order thinking andsoft or social skills, while Mayer et al. (2014) call for more systematic consideration of SGevaluation, for instance, through a greater number of operationalised models. Our paper addsto the debate on SG evaluation by developing a set of criteria which is tailored to games about

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lan

ches

ter

Lib

rary

] at

08:

48 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2015

1216 G. Wood et al.

Table 1. Comparison table of frameworks and criteria to evaluate SGs.

Key paper Name Elements of framework/constructs foroperationalisation

e.g. De Freitas and Oliver (2006) Four DimensionalFramework

Context, learner specification, peda-gogical considerations and mode ofrepresentation

Fu, Su, and Yu (2009) EGameFlow For example, clear goal, feedback,challenge, immersion, social interactionand knowledge improvement

Mayer et al. (2014) Generic conceptualframework forevaluating SGs

Pre-game elements include socio-demographics, attitudes, behaviours andskills; in-game elements include gameplay and experience; post-game elementsinclude player attitude, knowledge, skillsand behaviour

energy consumption and reflects the largely informal nature of energy education at home andthe social nature of its use. Energy SGs may be tailored towards use at home, work or in aneducational setting; collaborative use or solo play; and for players of a wide age range. Thismakes their purpose different from SGs which help to deliver a taught course. Our set of criteriaacts as a heuristic framework to understand what existing games do and in what ways they couldbe advanced, but can also be used for the design of further games.

3.2. Defining and justifying the criteria for an effective energy SG

Table 2 presents a list of criteria for an effective energy SG, drawn from the literature and organ-ised in four categories; one that is specific to energy literacy, and three generic categories for SGsrelated to personal behaviour identified in Section 2.2: feedback, social comparison and customi-sation for personal relevance. These 4 categories, and the 21 criteria contained within them arediscussed in detail below. There is some overlap between categories, in particular Columns 1and 4. However, the criteria in Column 1 relate to actions and challenges which happen in reallife (such as energy management in homes and cities), while the criteria in Column 4 focus onhow presentation of data encourages the player to connect personally with the game. The criteriaindicated as ‘core’ we consider essential for any SG aiming to increase energy literacy. With-out clear goals and feedback, and encouragement to reflect on learning and real-life behaviours,it is unlikely that an energy SG will leave a player feeling knowledgeable and able to reducetheir real-life consumption. We believe that attention should be paid to as many of the additionalcriteria as possible for an energy SG to be engaging and incite personal energy use reductions.

3.2.1. Energy literacy and application to real-life energy use/managementAttention to this category is essential to ensure critical learning takes place, and the player canrelate this to real-world situations.

(1) Realistic and meaningful tasks within a game connect the player to a real-life context(Froschauer et al. 2010). An SG has little use unless the player can apply what they havelearned to real-world situations (Mayer 2012).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lan

ches

ter

Lib

rary

] at

08:

48 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2015

Serious games for energy social science research 1217

Table 2. A framework for evaluating what SGs can do to progress energy literacy.

Energy literacy andapplication to real-lifeenergy use/management

Goals andfeedback

Social compari-son/community

Personal relevance,customisation and

timeliness

1. Clear application of gamegoals to real-life energyuse/management

2. Encouragement to applylearning outside the game

3. Encouragement to reflecton learning and real-lifeenergy-using behaviours(e.g. bring energy-usingpractices intoconsciousness, encourageactive thinking aboutenergy use)

4. Engages the player withenergy issues at a range ofscales (local/city, nationaland global)

5. Player encouraged to becritical of the informationthey receive about energyuse and issues (one aspectof energy literacy)

6. Communicates energy usethrough ways that aresignificant to the player, forexample, meaningful units,visual metaphors, units ofchoice to player

7. Player encouraged to seeenergy in a nexus contextwith other resources (e.g.water–energy–food linkagesand trade-offs)

8. Clear goals ofgameplay (Fu,Su, and Yu2009)

9. Clearconnectionbetweenactivities andlearning

10. Sufficientfeedback onprogressprovided in thegame (Fu, Su,and Yu 2009)

11. Engagingmethods offeedback, forexamplecontinuous;userencouraged tomake goals orpledges

12. Opportunitiesto applylearning insidethe gameenvironment(Fu, Su, and Yu2009)

13. Opportunity forthe player tosee/comparetheir progress(e.g. their currentbehaviour to pastbehaviour)

14. Opportunityfor the playerto comparetheirbehaviour/progress withothers (e.g.through aleaderboardor forum) andpotentiallyengage insociallearning

15. Encouragespeople to feel‘part ofsomething’,for example,a community

16. Information ispersonalised, orpersonally relevantinformation

17. Runs on personallyrelevant real-life,real-time data

18. Helps the playermeet their ownpersonal energygoals (e.g.environment,comfort and savingmoney)

19. Engages peoplewith their energyuse in the mediumor long term (Mayeret al. 2014)

20. Allows the player totest out differentscenarios relevant totheir own life (in thehome, workplace ora differentenvironment) andreceive feedback

21. Data are presentedin a way whichallows people tomake decisionsappropriate to theirown lives

Note: Numbers refer to individual criteria, and bold text indicates core criteria.

(2) Further to Criterion 1, the game should not only highlight real-life applications but enableand motivate them (such as through facilitative feedback; Dunwell, de Freitas, and Jarvis2011). ‘Scaffolding’ (a concept borrowed from cognitive psychology theory) is required toallow the player to link what they learn in the game to their actions in the real world (e.g.energy-using behaviours) (Dunwell, de Freitas, and Jarvis 2011, 45).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lan

ches

ter

Lib

rary

] at

08:

48 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2015

1218 G. Wood et al.

(3) Taking these criteria a step further, immersion in an ‘internal representational world’ cansupport reflection on real-life behaviours (De Freitas and Oliver 2006, 254). By encouragingcritical reflection on when energy is used (e.g. specific behaviours and lifestyles) we canbegin to address its ‘double invisibility’ (Burgess and Nye 2008).

(4) Framing energy consumption as carbon emissions could encourage behaviour changes ata broader scale than simply reducing usage at home, and a sustainable citizen connects theresponsibilities of citizenship at different scales (Desforges, Jones, and Woods 2005; Spenceet al. 2011).

(5) A constructivist approach to the SG design gives the learner an active role in their learn-ing, forming their own associations (Froschauer et al. 2010). While becoming ‘literate’ insomething is not essential for an SG, we argue that being encouraged to think criticallyand make informed decisions will encourage a sense of agency to manage energy moresustainably.

(6) In terms of learning, communication should suit the learner’s preferences (Ainsworth2008). For energy, this is meaningful units that resonate with the user (Spence et al. 2011).

(7) By making connections to the water–energy–food nexus, the player gains a greater under-standing of the trade-offs involved and wider implications of increasing energy demand(Hellegers et al. 2008).

3.2.2. Goals and feedbackThis category, core to the effectiveness of SGs, is a common feature of evaluation (see below).

(8) Clear goals of gameplay can be considered a central aspect of any successful SG, includedin the criteria of Bellotti et al. (2013) and Fu, Su, and Yu (2009).

(9) Every mechanical feature of an SG should be well connected to the learning goals (Bellottiet al. 2013), and this criterion also features in the EGameFlow scale (Fu, Su, and Yu 2009).Connecting activities within the game and learning makes gameplay feel meaningful.

(10) Fu, Su, and Yu (2009) put forward the criterion of sufficient feedback, and it is important inorder for the player to know their progress and gain guidance towards better performance(Kapp 2012).

(11) Feedback should not be overly critical, excessive or irrelevant (Dunwell, de Freitas,and Jarvis 2011). Engaging energy feedback might include progress towards targets forreductions and actionable ways to improve performance.

(12) Fu, Su, and Yu (2009) evaluate opportunities to apply learning inside a game, and Wang,Shen, and Ritterfield (2009) report a positive effect on players who experience the impactsof their decisions within a game.

(13) The opportunity for the player to see or compare their progress is not essential, but allowsfor the player to improve on their game performance, and ideally their real-life energyconservation, over time. Also, while some types of player like to compete with fellowplayers, others prefer to compete with themselves and this can be equally motivational(Bryant and Fondren 2009).

3.2.3. Social comparison/communityThis category can be seen as important for environmental games because a major potential routeto motivation for behaviour change is through engaging with others.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lan

ches

ter

Lib

rary

] at

08:

48 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2015

Serious games for energy social science research 1219

(14) Comparison to others through social norms can be an effective way of motivating energyconservation efforts (e.g. Dolan and Metcalfe 2013). A leaderboard is a simple way ofmaking a solitary play experience feel social, and encouraging competition (Kapp 2012).

(15) Social interaction is recommended in SGs, whether through online collaboration or real-world communities (Fu, Su, and Yu 2009), and energy conservation projects have attributedsuccess to participants feeling ‘part of something’ (e.g. Burchell, Rettie, and Roberts 2014).

3.2.4. Personal relevance, customisation and timelinessThis category is relevant for any effort targeting personal consumption and habits.

(16) Data or advice which a player knows is personalised will mean they can be sure of its rel-evance to their life. This also connects to the concept of instrumentality, and instilling thenotion that the player themselves can make a difference by saving energy (Spence et al.2011).

(17) Few games have worked to engage players using their real-time data (Orland et al. 2014 isone exception) but we argue that doing so helps to ensure personal relevance and connectionto real-world actions and potential change.

(18) Besides being able to select actions they are capable of doing, allowing a player to saveenergy according to their own priorities will increase buy-in. It is well known that appealingto personal motivations is pertinent to behaviour change attempts (Defra n.d.).

(19) A critique of many types of interventions for behaviour change is that they are not tested orare ineffective in the long term. There have been calls for efforts that address medium- andlong-term engagement with energy consumption (e.g. Van Dam, Bakker, and van Hal 2010;Snow et al. 2013) and an energy SG could also work to address this gap (Mayer et al. 2014).

(20) Besides the opportunity to trial ideas, a virtual world which provides feedback may encouragea player to replicate actions in real life (Froschauer et al. 2010).

(21) In terms of allowing the player to make decisions appropriate to their own life, a personmay wish to select energy curtailment actions over efficiency actions, for example (Steg2008). The greater the degree of agency a player has within a game, the more enjoyable andproductive the play will be (Bryant and Fondren 2009).

4. Applying the criteria

We have conducted an extensive search for online energy SGs. Beyond quizzes (a one-off, mini-malist SG), we found three broad types: ‘switch-off’, ‘city mayor’ and real-time data games. Weapply our framework to an example game of each of these three types.

The game Energy Hogs1 belongs to the ‘switch-off’ category; the player is seeking to trackdown the ‘energy hogs’ in a virtual home and banish them through adopting more efficientbehaviours, switching off appliances or making sustainable purchases. Energy Hogs meets onlytwo of the goals and feedback criteria and two of the energy literacy criteria, with a number ofthose considered ‘core’ not addressed, and contains no social comparison or personal tailoring atall (Table 3). However, the player is directed to the Hogbusters Handbook and Scavenger Huntactivity in order to apply the facts that they have learned to their home. Options for extendingthe game, based on our framework, include letting players choose their own energy-saving goalsand finding ways to achieve them within the virtual home, or drawing connections between thesebehaviour changes and the wider environment.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lan

ches

ter

Lib

rary

] at

08:

48 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2015

1220 G. Wood et al.

Table 3. Energy SG criteria met by Energy Hogs (grey boxes),based on game play.

The second game category could be called ‘city mayor’. It examines the various resource deci-sions (exploitation or conservation) within a particular geographical setting that includes a cityand its rural hinterland, with the aim being to balance economic and environmental objectives.Renewable energy production is a key component, but it sits within a nexus of other resourceslike clean air and water. Our example game, Super Energy Apocalypse: Recycled (SEA:R), fea-tures zombies and a ruined world as a metaphor for the ill effects of human interventions (Doucetand Srinivasan 2010). SEA:R utilises real data on the US energy economy but is not customisedor tailored to the player and does not relate to everyday energy use. The goal of playing the gameis to appreciate the relationship between resources, generation, transportation, the economy andpollution (Doucet and Srinivasan 2010). The developers found that players performed betterin a post-test of knowledge than a pre-play test, though the results were not quite statisticallysignificant (Doucet and Srinivasan 2010).

SEA:R pays attention to three of the four categories (Table 4) (with six of the eight ‘core’criteria addressed) but there are opportunities to develop further in each one. Goals and feedbackare incorporated within this game (as they would be in almost all SGs), but the fact that thegame is not about personal energy behaviours means it is not attempting to connect the playerwith their individual energy use decisions at home or at work. Equally, it is not straightforwardfor the player to apply what they have learned outside the game environment. However, thegame certainly encourages thinking about sustainable energy choices more broadly (and the factthat there is no easy solution), while cleverly not coming across as an ‘educational game’. Thegame is played individually but social comparisons (with other players) are enabled by an onlineleaderboard. Our criteria highlight that SEA:R is an effective game for increasing energy liter-acy in terms of engaging players with information about local, national or global scale energyresources and making decisions. Integration of personal energy usage in some way could increasemotivation and agency among players further, showing how they personally can apply their newknowledge.

Real-time energy games involve multiple players and actual energy data related to the players,obtained through smart meters. Extensively reported in Orland et al. (2014), the Energy Chickensgame stands out in that it covers three of the customisation/tailoring criteria. The game, whichinvolves maintaining the health of a virtual pet chicken through making personal energy savings,runs on actual energy consumption data measured through plug-load sensors of personal officeappliance use. The researchers found that self-reported energy consciousness increased and mea-sured energy usage decreased, with some individual level persistence following a 12 week trial

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lan

ches

ter

Lib

rary

] at

08:

48 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2015

Serious games for energy social science research 1221

Table 4. Energy SG criteria met by SEA:R (grey boxes), based on Doucetand Srinivasan (2010) and game play.

Table 5. Energy SG criteria met by Energy Chickens (grey boxes), basedon information from Orland et al. (2014).

(but no overall statistical indications of persistence, potentially due to social influence and lackof employee control over equipment use) (Orland et al. 2014).

Table 5 shows that a greater number of the criteria we suggest fit with a game like EnergyChickens, and all of the ‘core’ criteria are addressed. We can see that goals and feedback areclearly communicated through the game, and social comparison/community is also a clear focus.Real-time personal consumption data are utilised, which is still rare among energy SGs despitebeing highly advantageous for engaging players with their personal energy consumption. More-over, the fact that the game is used in an office environment makes it a social game, bringing inaspects of discussion, comparison and competition. ‘Graph’ view allows the player to see theirprogress over time, while ‘Mountain’ view allows them to compare their performance with oth-ers in the office. Interestingly, being used in a workplace means that any energy savings frombehavioural change are of financial benefit to the employer rather than to players. There is theopportunity for the player to try out different ways of saving energy and measure the impactof this through their virtual pet, but only based on the data being collected at their workstation.Supplying the player with information about the energy usage of other office appliances or thosein the home could help them make informed decisions about other opportunities to save energy,thus additionally increasing agency and energy literacy.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lan

ches

ter

Lib

rary

] at

08:

48 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2015

1222 G. Wood et al.

5. Discussion

Having developed a set of criteria to guide and evaluate energy SGs, its application to threedifferent types of existing energy games has shown that none of these is covering the entire spec-trum of possible criteria for effectiveness. The application shows that Energy Chickens is moreadvanced in comparison to the other games, due to its use of real-time personalised informationand community aspects.

We had to augment criteria from existing frameworks to reflect the need for energy SGs todevelop energy literacy among players and increase the visibility of energy use. Energy Chickensperformed better than Energy Hogs and SEA:R because the framework centres on the idea thatthe player should become more able and motivated to conserve energy at home or at work afterplaying an energy SG. SEA:R shows that games without an explicit purpose to modify personalenergy consumption could also help people learn about energy use and issues more broadly (andbecome more energy literate), although the actual impact on behaviours is uncertain. The lackof personalisation in Energy Hogs’ game tasks (choosing units, goals or testing scenarios) alsomakes it difficult for the player to engage with their real-life energy consumption, as shownthrough application of the criteria.

It is important to reflect here that we base our conceptions of the ‘effectiveness’ of these gameson our own gameplay (where possible) and the literature, rather than testing the extent to whichthe games helped a group of testers reduce their energy consumption. Therefore (in this paper),we cannot reflect on the actual success of the games in changing behaviours. However, initialindications from Orland et al. (2014) and Doucet and Srinivasan (2010) suggest that with furtherdevelopment, SGs could be effective in reducing energy consumption, following successes in thehealth sector (e.g. Kato et al. 2008).

Pre- and post-game engagement (which in a research project could take the form of interviews,community workshops, personalised information or household challenges, for instance) couldallow gaming experiences to meet more of the criteria on our checklist which may not currentlybe met by playing the game alone. These engagement activities are easy to combine with varioussocial science research methods, creating conditions for shared learning but also blurring thelines between primary research and (educational) outreach.

6. Opportunities for further research and development

Achieving long-term change in energy consumption is difficult: interventions such as continuousfeedback (Van Houwelingen and Van Raaij 1989) and information alongside rebates (Gon-zales, Aronson, and Costanzo 1988) have had limited bearing or even a negative effect onlong-term energy-using behaviours. SGs offer an interesting alternative intervention, one whichhas the potential to be more engaging even for non-bill payers, but further research into theireffectiveness is needed (Orland et al. 2014), especially in the longer term.

Our framework projects a vision for a successful game as one that encourages a diverse groupof people in an office or household environment to become energy literate, make informed deci-sions and take control of their energy use. But also beyond the framework we need to appreciatethe limitations of (existing) SGs. Players have a limited agency in the real world, so should agame flag up these limits? While this could be discouraging, it may also open up conversationswith others – for example, between children and parents, landlords and tenants, employee andemployer – thus invoking ripple effects beyond those directly engaging with the game. Thisunder-researched area deserves further attention.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lan

ches

ter

Lib

rary

] at

08:

48 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2015

Serious games for energy social science research 1223

SGs have the potential for different age groups to not only play and enjoy the experience,but to learn with and from one another. It is possible to develop material energy games (e.g.board or card games) alongside their digital counterparts, in order to encourage engagementfrom people of all ages. Parallels can be drawn between existing research activities and typesof SG (e.g. scenario building as a research activity and playing ‘city mayor’-type games). Anumber of world and UK future energy scenarios have been developed (e.g. National Grid 2013;World Energy Council 2013), but energy SGs could provide a virtual environment for local andpersonally relevant scenarios to be developed and deliberated among families, neighbours andcolleagues. The criteria we propose could also be applicable, with some adaptation, to gamesused as research-based interventions in other sustainable consumption debates, such as waterliteracy and conservation, or sustainable transport choices.

7. Conclusions

We have argued that SGs offer a potentially productive area for exploration by social scientistsinterested in energy behaviour change and energy demand reduction at an individual and collec-tive level. Several SGs have already been developed in this domain, but there is a need for moreresearch on their effectiveness. Energy SGs have their own specific criteria to meet in terms ofmaking energy use more visible, comprehensible and personally relevant, and encouraging play-ers to become more energy literate. While excellent frameworks exist to evaluate SGs generally,these were insufficient for the evaluation of the potential effectiveness of an energy SG. Thispaper proposes a set of criteria for reviewing the effectiveness of energy SGs that can also iden-tify options for further development of games that increase energy literacy and potentially helpto reduce consumption.

The criteria emphasise the need for personally relevant information which players can apply totheir real-life energy decisions, clear and actionable feedback related to each player’s own goals,and ways of comparing progress. We do not expect games to replace IHDs but there is a place forfurther energy SGs to be developed which focus on changes an individual – particularly one notpaying the bill – can make in the context of their household and community. These could poten-tially be linked to games or scenarios at broader geographical scales, and also inspire broaderreflections on the connections and trade-offs between energy, water, food and the environment.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the EPSRC within the BuildTEDDI programme [grant number E8439]. We are grateful tothree anonymous reviewers and the special issue editors for their useful comments.

Note

1. http://www.energyhog.org/ (accessed 25 September 2014).

Notes on contributors

Georgina Wood is a postdoctoral research assistant at Coventry University (CU), working in a multidisciplinary team onthe EPSRC BuildTEDDI Smarter Households project. She holds a Ph.D. in sustainable water management and an MScin environmental management from the University of Nottingham, following a BSc in geography from the Universityof Birmingham. Her research focus is on social science approaches to tackling environmental and resource managementissues.

Dan van der Horst is a senior lecturer in Environment, Energy and Society and the Director of TEDDINET – Transform-ing Energy Demand Through Digital Innovation. Dan is interested in the dilemmas of how to manage multi-functional

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lan

ches

ter

Lib

rary

] at

08:

48 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2015

1224 G. Wood et al.

natural resources in crowded and contested spaces. Located at the energy–society–ecosystems nexus, his work examineshow the (often blunt) instruments of top-down interventions impact unevenly on the heterogeneous geography of natu-ral resources, human wants and existing societal structures, creating techno-logistical inefficiencies and socio-economicinequalities.

Rosie Day is a senior lecturer in Human Geography at the University of Birmingham. She has postgraduate degrees fromthe London School of Economics and University College London and previously held a research post at the Universityof Glasgow before moving to Birmingham as a lecturer. Her research interests are in environmental inequalities, energypoverty and domestic energy demand.

Anastasios G. Bakaoukas has been involved with different aspects of the field of applied science for over 15 years, in areaslike Software Engineering, Serious Games, Games Programming, Digital Signal Processing (DSP) and UnconventionalComputing and Scientific Computing. A Lecturer/Senior Lecturer for over six years with Birmingham City University(BCU), he subsequently made the decision to turn to pure research. He holds an MSc in Data Communications withDistinction and a Ph.D. in Software Engineering and Scientific Computing. Current research activities consider a broadrange of issues relating but not restricting to Unconventional Computing, DSP and DSP Algorithms for Event Detectionand Energy Disaggregation, DSP Algorithms for Power Line Components Measurements, Brain Computer Interface,Adaptive Filters and Least Squares Error Modelling Non-uniform Frequency Samples Filters.

Panagiotis Petridis is a senior lecturer in Gamification at Aston University. Panagiotis is the co-investigator of twoEPSRC projects in the areas of built environment and manufacturing. Previously Panagiotis was involved in severalEU proposals as co-investigator such as ALICE, SIMAULA, MASSELTOV, and MAGELLAN. Panagiotis has exten-sive experience in managing, coordinating and implementing research projects. Previously, Panagiotis has worked asa Research Fellow at the University of Salford and was involved in a EU Funded project titled MANUBUILD. Pana-giotis has 10 years’ experience of working in Virtual Environments, Human Computer Interaction, 3D Interfaces andHaptic Devices, and Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing. He holds a Ph.D. in Computer Graphics from Sussex Uni-versity titled “Interactions in Digital Heritage Systems”. For the duration of his Ph.D., Panagiotis was involved in twoEU projects, firstly the Augmented Representation of Cultural Object (ARCO) from 2001 until 2004, and secondly theEuropean Network of Excellence in Open Cultural Heritage (EPOCH) project from 2004 until 2007. Panagiotis currentlyholds the post of visiting Research Fellow at Sussex University.

Shuli Liu is reader in the Department of Civil Engineering, Architecture & Building, with 10 years research experiencein the areas of low-carbon cities and low-impact buildings including building services and energy-efficient technologies.Dr Liu has been involved in 13 research projects funded by EPSRC, KTP, China Natural Science Research Counciland industry partners such as Tata Steel, Triton Shower, Orbit House Group, etc. She has been awarded more than £1.7million of funding and currently is working on 7 projects such as an EPSRC smart meter and sensors system for domestichouses, a KTP on low-carbon energy models in social housing extensively using novel and sustainable technologies, solarventilation system, free cooling and heating technologies, etc. Dr Liu has published 40 papers on sustainable energytechnologies in refereed journals and at conferences. She acts as co-editor for the International Journal of Low CarbonTechnologies, peer reviewer for six refereed journals, external examiner for Ph.D. degree of Maulana Azad NationalInstitute of Technology, India, and peer reviewer for EPSRC research proposals.

Latifimran Jalil has a BSc Hons degree in Civil Engineering from Leeds Metropolitan University and an MSc in Environ-mental Engineering from University of Nottingham. In 2005, he was awarded a joint Ph.D. from De Montfort Universityand Loughborough University in the field of Energy Systems and Air Distribution. He also has industrial work experienceas an environmental engineer for Rolls Royce. Latifimran Jalil joined CU in December 2013 as a research assistant on theEPSRC BuildTEDDI Smarter Households project. Before coming to CU he was a research associate at Nottingham TrentUniversity working on a project to monitor social housing energy consumption using wireless energy monitoring sensorsystems. He has also worked at the Institute of Energy and Sustainability Development as a building energy surveyoron the UK CaRB project and worked as a research fellow at De Montfort University on a project relating to occupancythermal comfort and air modelling in buildings.

Mark Gaterell is Professor of Sustainable Construction and Associate Dean (Research) at the University of Portsmouth.He has been involved with different aspects of the field of sustainable built environments for over 20 years, working forcompanies such as Thames Water, Scott Wilson and the Building Research Establishment as well as receiving researchdegrees from the University of Cambridge and Imperial College. Current research activities consider a broad range ofissues relating to sustainable buildings, from the analysis of the relationship between buildings and open spaces at aredevelopment scale and the implications of different urban futures, to the consideration of elements of both new build

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lan

ches

ter

Lib

rary

] at

08:

48 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2015

Serious games for energy social science research 1225

and the existing building stock at an individual building scale. This work is characterised by multidisciplinary approaches,working together with ecologists, social scientists, urban designers, architects, economists and engineers.

Elise Smithson is the Deputy Director of the Low Impact Buildings Centre in the Faculty of Engineering and Computing.The centre advances applied research and related activities in order to develop strategies and products with academic,governmental and commercial partners aiming to support national and international carbon reduction targets for sustain-able buildings. Elise’s substantial experience is in the practical implementation and needs of public and private sectororganisations in the delivery of environmental sustainability and policy objectives. This experience includes major UKBlue Chip organisations. Also, Elise is involved as principal investigator on a significant applied research project andleads relevant estates research opportunities related to the University’s Environmental Policy.

John Barnham is head of sustainable investment at Orbit Group, a 37,000 home housing association. John is responsiblefor embedding sustainability within Orbit linking the commercial viability of the housing portfolio with low-carbonsolutions while maintaining social housing ethics. Developing appropriate and effective energy advice to Orbit customersis a key aspect of John’s role.

Debbie Harvey is Sustainability Projects Officer for Orbit Group. She is responsible for supporting the development anddelivery of projects which embed sustainability within and across the organisation. Debbie recently completed an MScin Sustainable Development at the University of Exeter.

Benqiang Yang is Lecturer of Electrical Engineering and the State Registered Electrical Engineer of Chongqing Univer-sity, China. He has been involved in building electrical design and research for over 10 years, working for companiessuch as TianYi Design and XingZheng Consult as well as undertaking an overseas visit study at CU. Current researchactivities consider Energy Efficiency and Environment Control.

Charn Pisithpunth is a research student at CU. At CU, he develops the Guideline for Environmental Games (GEG)to highlight game/learning features that could be used in environmental games. Based on GEG, he also develops THEGROWTH – an awareness game that aims to tackle environmental and social issues originated from unsustainablepopulation growth.

References

Abrahamse, W., L. Steg, C. Vlek, and J. A. Rothengatter. 2005. “A Review of Intervention Studies Aimed at HouseholdEnergy Conservation.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (3): 273–291.

Ainsworth, S. 2008. “How Should We Evaluate Complex Multimedia Environments?” In Understanding MultimediaDocuments, edited by R. Lowe, J.-F. Rouet, and W. Schnotz, 249–266. New York: Springer.

Becker, L. J. 1978. “Joint Effect of Feedback and Goal Setting on Performance: A Field Study of Residential EnergyConservation.” Journal of Applied Psychology 63 (4): 428–433.

Bell, B. T., L. Little, N. Toth, R. Beale, Y. Guo, M. Horton, D. Fitton, and J. C. Read. 2013. “Teenagers Talking aboutTechnologies: Designing Technology to Reduce Teen Energy Use.” Proceedings of CHI’13, Paris, April 27–May 2,1491–1496.

Bellotti, F., B. Kapralos, K. Lee, P. Moreno-Ger, and R. Berta. 2013. “Assessment in and of Seri-ous Games: An Overview.” Advances in Human-Computer Interaction 2013: 11 pp, article ID 136864.http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ahci/2013/136864/cta/.

Broms, L., C. Katzeff, M. Bang, A. Nyblom, S. I. Hjelm, and K. Ehrnberger. 2010. “Coffee Maker Patterns and theDesign of Energy Feedback Artefacts.” Proceedings of the 8th ACM conference on designing interactive systems,New York, 93–102.

Brounen, D., N. Kok, and J. M. Quigley. 2013. “Energy Literacy, Awareness, and Conservation Behavior of ResidentialHouseholds.” Energy Economics 38 (2013): 42–50.

Bryant, J., and W. Fondren. 2009. “Psychological and Communicological Theories of Learning and Emotion UnderlyingSerious Games.” In Serious Games: Mechanisms and Effects, edited by U. Ritterfield, M. Cody, and P. Vorderer,103–116. Abingdon: Routledge.

Burchell, K., R. Rettie, and T. Roberts. 2014. Working Together to Save Energy? Report of the Smart CommunitiesProject, June. Behaviour and Practice Research Group, Kingston University.

Burgess, J., and M. Nye. 2008. “Re-materialising Energy Use Through Transparent Monitoring Systems.” Energy Policy36 (12): 4454–4459.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lan

ches

ter

Lib

rary

] at

08:

48 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2015

1226 G. Wood et al.

Carrico, A. R., and M. Riemer. 2011. “Motivating Energy Conservation in the Workplace: An Evaluation of the Use ofGroup-Level Feedback and Peer Education.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 31 (1): 1–13.

Costanza, E., S. D. Ramchurn, and N. R. Jennings. 2012. “Understanding Domestic Energy Consumption ThroughInteractive Visualisation: A Field Study.” Proceedings of UbiComp ’12, September 5–8, Pittsburgh, PA.

Defra. n.d. “The Sustainable Lifestyles Framework.” Accessed September 25, 2014. http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/economy/documents/sustainable-life-framework.pdf

De Freitas, S., and M. Oliver. 2006. “How Can Exploratory Learning with Games and Simulations Within the CurriculumBe Most Effectively Evaluated?” Computers & Education 46 (3): 249–264.

Desforges, L., R. Jones, and M. Woods. 2005. “New Geographies of Citizenship.” Citizenship Studies 9 (5): 439–451.Dolan, P., and R. Metcalfe. 2013. Neighbors, Knowledge, and Nuggets: Two Natural Field Experiments on the Role of

Incentives on Energy Conservation. CEP Discussion Paper No 1222, June. LSE.Doucet, L., and V. Srinivasan. 2010. “Designing Entertaining Educational Games Using Procedural Rhetoric: A Case

Study.” Proceedings of Sandbox 2010, Los Angeles, CA, July 28–29, 5–10.Dunwell, I., S. de Freitas, and S. Jarvis. 2011. “Four-Dimensional Consideration of Feedback in Serious Games.” In

Digital Games and Learning, edited by S. de Freitas and P. Maharg, 42–60. London: Continuum.E.ON. 2014. “Saving Energy Toolkit.” Accessed September 15, 2014. https://www.eonenergy.com/for-your-home/help-

and-support/saving-energy-toolkitFisher, J., I. Farre, A. Dray, N. Khimashia, and P. Perez. 2012. “Serious Games to Explore Uncertainty of Future Farms.”

Proceedings of the 16th Australian agronomy conference, October 14–18.Froehlich, J., L. Findlater, and J. Landay. 2010. “The Design of Eco-feedback Technology.” Proceedings of the SIGCHI

conference on human factors in computing systems, New York, NY, 1999–2008.Froschauer, J., I. Seidel, M. Gärtner, H. Berger, and D. Merkl. 2010. “Design and Evaluation of a Serious Game for

Immersive Cultural Training.” Proceedings of VSMM’10, Seoul, October, 253–260.Fu, F.-L., R.-C. Su, and S.-C. Yu. 2009. “EGameFlow: A Scale to Measure Learners’ Enjoyment of E-Learning Games.”

Computers & Education 52 (1): 101–112.Göbel, S., M. Gutjah, and S. Hardy. 2013. “Evaluation of Serious Games.” In Serious Games and Virtual Worlds in

Education, Professional Development, and Healthcare, edited by K. Bredl and W. Bosche, 105–115. Hershey, PA:IGI Global.

Gonzales, M. H., E. Aronson, and M. A. Costanzo. 1988. “Using Social Cognition and Persuasion to Promote EnergyConservation: A Quasi-experiment.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 18 (12): 1049–1066.

Goulden, M., B. Bedwell, S. Rennick-Egglestone, T. Rodden, and A. Spence. 2014. “Smart Grids, Smart Users? TheRole of the User in Demand Side Management.” Energy Research & Social Science 2 (2014): 21–29.

Hargreaves, T. 2010. The Visible Energy Trial: Insights from Qualitative Interviews. Tyndall Centre for Climate ChangeResearch Working Paper 141. Norwich: University of East Anglia.

Hargreaves, T. 2012. Governing Energy Use at Home: Smart Meters, Governmentality and Resistance. 3S WorkingPaper 2012–01. Norwich: Science, Society and Sustainability Research Group.

Hein, G. 1991. “Constructivist Learning Theory.” Accessed June 20, 2014. http://www.exploratorium.edu/ifi/resources/constructivistlearning.html

Hellegers, P., D. Zilberman, P. Steduto, and P. McCornick. 2008. “Interactions Between Water, Energy, Food andEnvironment: Evolving Perspectives and Policy Issues.” Water Policy 10 (1): 1–10.

JRC. 2014. “JRC News ‘Over 70% European Consumers to have a Smart Meter for Electricity by 2020’.”Accessed September 26, 2014. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/over-70-percent-european-consumers-have-smart-meter-electricity-2020

Kapp, K. M. 2012. The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-Based Methods and Strategies for Training andEducation. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

Kato, P. M., S. W. Cole, A. S. Bradlyn, and B. H. Pollock. 2008. “A Video Game Improves Behavioral Outcomes inAdolescents and Young Adults with Cancer: A Randomized Trial.” Pediatrics 122 (2): 305–317.

Khaled, R., and A. Vasalou. Forthcoming. “Bridging Serious Games and Participatory Design.” International Journal ofChild-Computer Interaction. doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2014.03.001.

Knight, J. F., S. Carley, B. Tregunna, S. Jarvis, R. Smithies, S. de Freitas, I. Dunwell, and K. Mackway-Jones. 2010. “Seri-ous Gaming Technology in Major Incident Triage Training: A Pragmatic Controlled Trial.” Resuscitation 81 (9):1175–1179.

Lieberman, D. A. 2001. “Management of Chronic Pediatric Diseases with Interactive Health Games: Theory andResearch Findings.” The Journal of Ambulatory Care Management 24 (1): 26–38.

Lucero, A., E. Karapanos, J. Arrasvuori, and H. Korhonen. 2014. “Playful or Gameful? Creating Delightful UserExperiences.” Interactions 21 (3): 34–39.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lan

ches

ter

Lib

rary

] at

08:

48 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2015

Serious games for energy social science research 1227

Mayer, I. 2012. “Towards a Comprehensive Methodology for the Research and Evaluation of Serious Games.” ProcediaComputer Science 15 (2012): 233–247.

Mayer, I., G. Bekebrede, C. Harteveld, H. Warmelink, Q. Zhou, T. van Ruijven, J. Lo, R. Kortmann, and I. Wenzler.2014. “The Research and Evaluation of Serious Games: Toward a Comprehensive Methodology.” British Journalof Educational Technology 45 (3): 502–527.

Mayer, I., M. Leijten, L. Carton, M. de Jong, R. Scalzo, E. Dammers, and F. Verwest. 2005. “The Urban Network Game:A Simulation of the Future of Joint City Interests.” In Gaming, Simulations and Society, edited by R. Shiratori, K.Arai, and F. Kato, 39–48. Kisarazu: JASAG.

Mezirow, J. 2009. “An Overview of Transformative Learning.” In Contemporary Theories of Learning, edited by K.Illeris, 90–105. Abingdon: Routledge.

Michael, D., and S. Chen. 2006. Serious Games: Games that Educate, Train and Inform. Boston, MA: Thomson.Nadolski, R., H. Hummel, H. van den Brink, R. Hoefakker, A. Slootmaker, H. Kurvers, and J. Storm. 2008. “EMERGO:

Methodology and Toolkit for Efficient Development of Serious Games in Higher Education.” Simulation andGaming 39 (3): 338–352.

National Grid. 2013. UK Future Energy Scenarios: UK Gas and Electricity Transmission. Warwick: National Grid.Opower. 2013. Five Universal Truths about Energy Consumers. London: Opower.Orland, B., N. Ram, D. Lang, K. Houser, N. Kling, and M. Coccia. 2014. “Saving Energy in an Office Environment: A

Serious Game Intervention.” Energy and Buildings 74 (2014): 43–52.Petridis, P., I. Dunwell, S. Arnab, S. Scarle, A. Qureshi, S. de Freitas, A. Protopsaltis, and K. Star. 2011. “Building Social

Communities Around Alternate Reality Games.” Third International Conference on Games and Virtual Worlds forSerious Applications, Athens, Greece, IEEE.

Pierce, J., W. Odom, and E. Blevis. 2008. “Energy Aware Dwelling: A Critical Survey of Interaction Design for Eco-Visualizations.” Proceedings of the 20th Australasian conference on computer-human interaction: designing forhabitus and habitat, New York, 1–8.

Prensky, M. 2007. Digital Game-Based Learning. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House.Schwartz, T., G. Stevens, T. Jakobi, S. Denef, L. Ramirez, V. Wulf, and D. Randall. 2014. “What People Do with Con-

sumption Feedback: A Long-Term Living Lab Study of a Home Energy Management System.” Interacting withComputers. doi:10.1093/iwc/iwu009.

Schwartz, T., G. Stevens, L. Ramirez, and V. Wulf. 2013. “Uncovering Practices of Making Energy Consump-tion Accountable: A Phenomenological Inquiry.” ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 20 (2):12:1–12:30.

SGU. 2011. “Serious Game Types & Examples.” Accessed September 26, 2014. http://www.seriousgameuniversity.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22&Itemid=149

Simple Energy. 2014. “We Motivate People to Save Energy.” Accessed September 15, 2014. http://simpleenergy.com/Snow, S., L. Buys, P. Roe, and M. Brereton. 2013. “Curiosity to Cupboard: Self-reported Disengagement with Energy Use

Feedback Over Time.” Proceedings of the 25th Australian computer-human interaction conference: augmentation,application, innovation, collaboration, ACM, Adelaide, 245–254.

Spence, A., C. Leygue, B. Bedwell, and C. O’Malley. 2011. “Engaging with Energy: Saving Money or Saving theWorld?” Energy and People: Futures, Complexity and Challenges Conference, Environmental Change Institute,Oxford, September 20–21.

St. Clair, R. 2003. “Words for the World: Creating Critical Environmental Literacy for Adults.” New Directions for adultand continuing education 2003 (99): 69–78.

Steg, L. 2008. “Promoting Household Energy Conservation.” Energy Policy 36 (12): 4449–4453.Strengers, Y. 2013. Smart Energy Technologies in Everyday Life: Smart Utopia? Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Van Dam, S. S., C. A. Bakker, and van Hal, J. D. M. 2010. “Home Energy Monitors: Impact over the Medium-Term.”

Building Research & Information 38 (5): 458–469.Van Houwelingen, J. H., and F. W. Van Raaij. 1989. “The Effect of Goal-Setting and Daily Electronic Feedback on

In-home Energy Use.” Journal of Consumer Research 16 (1): 98–105.Wang, H., C. Shen, and U. Ritterfield. 2009. “Enjoyment of Digital Games: What Makes Them ‘Seriously’ Fun?” In

Serious Games: Mechanisms and Effects, edited by U. Ritterfield, M. Cody, and P. Vorderer, 25–47. Abingdon:Routledge.

World Energy Council. 2013. World Energy Scenarios: Composing Energy Futures to 2050. London: World EnergyCouncil.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lan

ches

ter

Lib

rary

] at

08:

48 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2015